In reading the article I see your commenting on Malpractice, WC, and auto but where does Property and Casualty come in? And to be honest- who cares? It seems that everyone in Mass that opposes the new law are doing every thing in there power to make it sound like this is a catastrophy. Let’s talk about the flip side, if there are added benefits for the spouses of a gay persons, well we aren’t giving them away for free are we? More coverage offered more premium we are going to collect.
So why are we even addressing this issue? Just because a gay couple filed a suit? How many law suits are filed by straight couples every year? And some of them are common law marriages. What makes a gay marriage any different than a common law marriage?
Let’s get off this subject and concentrate on more important issues.
I have to agree w/ Jackie, my goodness there is so much going on in the world today that is so much more important, lets see, war, terrorism. Is it really that big of a deal, weather a person is straight, gay, bi who cares, we all pay taxes and we all are people. GET A LIFE
You two are only looking at this via the liberal “gay” issue, dead horse, move along. Look at it as:
1: This is insurance history in the making.
This is the first lawsuit filed that is usually reserved for the “straight” couple.
2: It WILL be a catasthrope when they move across state lines and try to file married and joint claims, or even file taxes. I for one am very interested in seeing the outcome of some of these lawsuits. Personally I think the lawyers have been frothing at the mouth for this to happen, and now that one lawsuit has been filed, you will see this coming out of the woodwork.
1) Yes it is. As it is the first lawsuit where gay couples are given the same rights as sraight couples, it is imporant to those individules to be treated just like any other married couple.
2) It will not be a catasthrope. Yes, they will pay taxes like every other married couple (at higher rates than if they files separatly, so the government will collect even more money) , they will be able to file lawsuits just like any other married couple, (and pay the same higher insurance premiums) as any other married couple. And their rates will go up just like any other insured that has a claim history. As for lawyers, they start salivating at the site of an ambulance, so big deal.
So am only seeing part of your point here, but I do agree that I would like to see the outcome of this lawsuit, will be another step for these couples to be treated with the same respect and importance that is placed on straight marriages.
Anyone that doesn’t believe that this is an out and out money grab is in absolute denial. QUESTION: Why after being married for only one day did this couple file a lawsuit? ANSWER: Because they can. Finally, why did’t the cancer victim file the case? Perhaps because there is a void of believable evidence showing malpractice, while a sympathetic jury may want to award the “victim”? My heart goes out to the cancer patient, who is in for a difficult time. Nothing goes out for the soon to be “grieving spouse”.
Whoa- “the couple was married only one day before filing”, however who is to say how long this couple had been together before they got married? You have no personal history about this couple to make that judgement.
The law has only been in effect for a short time so, you can’t use time as a reason for filing the claim. Yes all injured parties should be compensated, if they are truly injured. That is up to a judge.
Our claims people and courts are swamped with frivioulus law suits, and this may not be any different. However to conclude it is the end of the insurance world as we know it is silly. It is another exposure that needs to be taken in consideration when underwriting these exposures. However to make it such a huge deal is tandamount to Chicken Little’s cry that the sky is falling.
Everyday in the insurance world there is a new exposure to consider, spray on tanning, new computer or internet exposures, or a new construction issue to deal with.
Someone needs to take the cost of expense under consideration as that is what is truly costing us, not that fact a claim was filed, for what ever reason.
And yes this all is politically and money modivated- Welcome to the United States, land of the free and home of the ever ending lawsuits.
I stand by my previous comment. If the malpractice exposure was apparent, the cancer victim has grounds to sue. It is worse than frivolous for the one-day-long mate to sue for loss of consortium. Let’s focus on the actual loss, in this case malpractice, and not on the frivolous claim of loss of consortium, regardless of how long they were together before being “legally” married in the people’s republic of Massachusetts.
First off, the article shown doesn’t address whether the cancer victim herself may have already pursued a suit on her own. That piece of info not being addressed at all–why assume it hasn’t been pursued?
Another article located indicates the couple did get together in 1990, and had a “commitment ceremony” in 1992. That’s 14 years together, 12 years post-commitment ceremony. (Longer than quite a few “straight” marriages. My first didn’t last that long.)
Another item, Kalish has a biological daughter who Charron also has since legally adopted. She’s 6 years old and also a plaintiff in the case since Kalish is biologically, and legally, her mother.
Facts would still be needed to determine whether indeed a malpractice action would be meritworhty, and that’s something for the courts to figure out. We do need to end frivolous lawsuits, no matter who is filing them. Just because a suit was filed only one day after the marriage (which had not previous been legal) isn’t proof on its own that there is no merit to the case.
How would “dramshop” apply to this?
In reading the article I see your commenting on Malpractice, WC, and auto but where does Property and Casualty come in? And to be honest- who cares? It seems that everyone in Mass that opposes the new law are doing every thing in there power to make it sound like this is a catastrophy. Let’s talk about the flip side, if there are added benefits for the spouses of a gay persons, well we aren’t giving them away for free are we? More coverage offered more premium we are going to collect.
So why are we even addressing this issue? Just because a gay couple filed a suit? How many law suits are filed by straight couples every year? And some of them are common law marriages. What makes a gay marriage any different than a common law marriage?
Let’s get off this subject and concentrate on more important issues.
Thank you
I have to agree w/ Jackie, my goodness there is so much going on in the world today that is so much more important, lets see, war, terrorism. Is it really that big of a deal, weather a person is straight, gay, bi who cares, we all pay taxes and we all are people. GET A LIFE
You two are only looking at this via the liberal “gay” issue, dead horse, move along. Look at it as:
1: This is insurance history in the making.
This is the first lawsuit filed that is usually reserved for the “straight” couple.
2: It WILL be a catasthrope when they move across state lines and try to file married and joint claims, or even file taxes. I for one am very interested in seeing the outcome of some of these lawsuits. Personally I think the lawyers have been frothing at the mouth for this to happen, and now that one lawsuit has been filed, you will see this coming out of the woodwork.
Right on Jackie! These people are the ridiculous ones. Totally to rip the system and the taxpayers off.
Dave,
1) Yes it is. As it is the first lawsuit where gay couples are given the same rights as sraight couples, it is imporant to those individules to be treated just like any other married couple.
2) It will not be a catasthrope. Yes, they will pay taxes like every other married couple (at higher rates than if they files separatly, so the government will collect even more money) , they will be able to file lawsuits just like any other married couple, (and pay the same higher insurance premiums) as any other married couple. And their rates will go up just like any other insured that has a claim history. As for lawyers, they start salivating at the site of an ambulance, so big deal.
So am only seeing part of your point here, but I do agree that I would like to see the outcome of this lawsuit, will be another step for these couples to be treated with the same respect and importance that is placed on straight marriages.
Thanks for sharing though.
What about SS survivor benefits. If SS is in trouble now, it really will be when that kicks in – don’t think that won’t add quite a burden.
Spousal medical benefits will cause problems in that industry as well.
Is it not about respect – being “married” will get one no more respect. It’s all about the money.
Anyone that doesn’t believe that this is an out and out money grab is in absolute denial. QUESTION: Why after being married for only one day did this couple file a lawsuit? ANSWER: Because they can. Finally, why did’t the cancer victim file the case? Perhaps because there is a void of believable evidence showing malpractice, while a sympathetic jury may want to award the “victim”? My heart goes out to the cancer patient, who is in for a difficult time. Nothing goes out for the soon to be “grieving spouse”.
Whoa- “the couple was married only one day before filing”, however who is to say how long this couple had been together before they got married? You have no personal history about this couple to make that judgement.
The law has only been in effect for a short time so, you can’t use time as a reason for filing the claim. Yes all injured parties should be compensated, if they are truly injured. That is up to a judge.
Our claims people and courts are swamped with frivioulus law suits, and this may not be any different. However to conclude it is the end of the insurance world as we know it is silly. It is another exposure that needs to be taken in consideration when underwriting these exposures. However to make it such a huge deal is tandamount to Chicken Little’s cry that the sky is falling.
Everyday in the insurance world there is a new exposure to consider, spray on tanning, new computer or internet exposures, or a new construction issue to deal with.
Someone needs to take the cost of expense under consideration as that is what is truly costing us, not that fact a claim was filed, for what ever reason.
And yes this all is politically and money modivated- Welcome to the United States, land of the free and home of the ever ending lawsuits.
I stand by my previous comment. If the malpractice exposure was apparent, the cancer victim has grounds to sue. It is worse than frivolous for the one-day-long mate to sue for loss of consortium. Let’s focus on the actual loss, in this case malpractice, and not on the frivolous claim of loss of consortium, regardless of how long they were together before being “legally” married in the people’s republic of Massachusetts.
First off, the article shown doesn’t address whether the cancer victim herself may have already pursued a suit on her own. That piece of info not being addressed at all–why assume it hasn’t been pursued?
Another article located indicates the couple did get together in 1990, and had a “commitment ceremony” in 1992. That’s 14 years together, 12 years post-commitment ceremony. (Longer than quite a few “straight” marriages. My first didn’t last that long.)
Another item, Kalish has a biological daughter who Charron also has since legally adopted. She’s 6 years old and also a plaintiff in the case since Kalish is biologically, and legally, her mother.
Facts would still be needed to determine whether indeed a malpractice action would be meritworhty, and that’s something for the courts to figure out. We do need to end frivolous lawsuits, no matter who is filing them. Just because a suit was filed only one day after the marriage (which had not previous been legal) isn’t proof on its own that there is no merit to the case.
Bravo…
spleeb my fleeb. pleebs?